Skip to main content
×
Home

Perspectives on the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence's recommendations to use health technologies only in research

  • Irfan A. Dhalla (a1), Sarah Garner (a2), Kalipso Chalkidou (a2) and Peter Littlejohns (a2)
Abstract

Background: The concept of using public funds to pay for healthcare interventions only when provided in the context of ongoing research is receiving increasing attention worldwide. Nevertheless, these decisions are often controversial and implementation can be problematic.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the views of United Kingdom stakeholders on the current arrangements for implementing “only in research” (OIR) decisions and to investigate how improvements might be made.

Methods: After an internal review of previous OIR decisions issued by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), deliberations by NICE's Citizens Council, and an international workshop convened by NICE and the United States Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, thirteen key stakeholders and experts from academia, industry, government, and the National Health Service (NHS) were interviewed using a semistructured interview guide. Interview transcripts were subjected to a framework-based analysis using computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software.

Results: All interviewees endorsed the use of the OIR option. There was a high degree of consensus for several suggestions regarding how the use of the OIR option might be improved. For example, there was universal agreement that a formal process should be established to prioritize research needs arising from OIR decisions and that funds for publicly funded research projects should be channeled in a manner that would better motivate healthcare providers to participate in OIR-related research.

Conclusions: The findings of this study suggest several potential modifications of the OIR pathway in the United Kingdom and may also be helpful to health technology assessment agencies in other countries that already use or are considering using an OIR-like option to reduce the uncertainty inherent in health technology assessment.

Copyright
References
Hide All
1. Brown P, Brunnhuber K, Chalkidou K, et al. Health research: How to formulate research recommendations. BMJ. 2006;333:804.
2. Chalkidou K, Hoy A, Littlejohns P. Making a decision to wait for more evidence: When the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommends a technology only in the context of research. J R Soc Med. 2007;100:453460.
3. Chalkidou K, Walley T, Culyer A, Littlejohns P, Hoy A. Evidence-informed evidence-making. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008;13:167173.
4. Chalmers I. Addressing uncertainties about the effects of treatments offered to NHS patients: Whose responsibility? J R Soc Med. 2007;100:440441.
5. Claxton KP, Sculpher MJ. Using value of information analysis to prioritise health research: Some lessons from recent UK experience. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:1055.
6. Cooksey D. A review of UK health research funding. Norwich: Her Majesty's Stationery Office; 2006.
7 Department of Health. Faster access to modern treatment: How NICE appraisal will work. London: Department of Health; 1999.
8. Department of Health. High quality care for all: NHS Next Stage Review final report. London: Department of Health; 2008.
9. Goeree R, Levin L. Building bridges between academic research and policy formulation: The PRUFE Framework-an integral part of Ontario's evidence-based HTPA process. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:1143.
10. Higginbottom GM. Sampling issues in qualitative research. Nurse Res. 2004;12:719.
11. House of Commons Health Committee. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: First report of session 2007–08. London: The Stationery Office Limited; 2007.
12 Kesselheim AS, Fischer MA, Avorn J. The rise and fall of Natrecor for congestive heart failure: Implications for drug policy. Health Aff (Millwood). 2006;25:10951102.
13. Levin L, Goeree R, Sikich N, et al. Establishing a comprehensive continuum from an evidentiary base to policy development for health technologies: The Ontario experience. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:299309.
14. Lyratzopoulos G, Patrick H, Campbell B. Registers needed for new interventional procedures. Lancet. 2008;371:17341736.
15. Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ. 2000;320:50.
16. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Rituximab for the treatment of relapsed or refractory stage III or IV follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. NICE technology appraisal guidance 137. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2008.
17. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy for depression and anxiety. Technology appraisal 97. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2006.
18. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Irinotecan, oxaliplatin and raltitrexed for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. Technology appraisal 93. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2005.
19. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Docetaxel for the adjuvant treatment of early node-positive breast cancer. NICE technology appraisal guidance 109. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2006.
20. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the use of taxanes for the treatment of breast cancer. Technology appraisal guidance – No. 30. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2001.
21. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the use of liquid-based cytology for cervical screening. Technology appraisal 69. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2003.
22. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Consultancy services business plan. National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence. http://www.nice.org.uk/media/F14/0A/ITEM5ConsultancyServicesBusinessPlanMain.pdf (accessed August 13, 2008).
23. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2008.
24. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Laparascopic surgery for colorectal cancer. NICE technology appraisal guidance 105. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2006.
25. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Managing uncertainty in healthcare: Report of a meeting organised by NICE and AHRQ. National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence. http://www.nice.org.uk/media/A1A/E6/NICEAHRQWorkshopReportFINAL.pdf (accessed August 12, 2008).
26. NICE Citizens Council. Only in research. National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence. http://www.nice.org.uk/media/129/29/OIRReport300407.pdf (accessed August 13, 2008).
27. NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme. Annual Report 2007. NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme. http://www.ncchta.org/publicationspdfs/Annualreports/AnnualReport2007Web.pdf (accessed August 13, 2008).
28. Palmer S, Smith PC. Incorporating option values into the economic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ. 2000;19:755766.
29. Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Analysing qualitative data. In: Pope C, Mays N, eds. Qualitative research in health care. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing; 2006.
30. Raftery J. Review of NICE's recommendations,1999–2005. BMJ. 2006;332:12661268.
31. Rawlins M. In pursuit of quality: The National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Lancet. 1999; 353:10791082.
32. Rawson NS, West R, Appel WC. Could conditional release of new drugs provide the information required to study drug effectiveness? A discussion paper. Can J Clin Pharmacol. 2000;7:185190.
33. Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Bryman A, Burgess RG, eds. Analyzing qualitative data. London: Routledge; 1994.
34. Sauerland S, Maegele M. A CRASH landing in severe head injury. Lancet. 2004;364:12911292.
35. Topol EJ. Failing the public health—Rofecoxib, Merck, and the FDA. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:17071709.
36. Tunis SR, Pearson SD. Coverage options for promising technologies: Medicare's ‘Coverage With Evidence Development’. Health Aff (Millwood). 2006;25:12181230.
37. Vinck I, Neyt M, Thiry N, Louagie M, Ramaekers D. Introduction of emerging medical devices on the market: A new procedure in Belgium. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:449454.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 2
Total number of PDF views: 20 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 90 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 18th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.